|
Julia Azari@juliaazari.bsky.social |
i keep re-reading this to make sure i didn't hallucinate
22 replies 137 reposts 511 likes
|
zenosAnalytic
@zenosanalytic.bsky.social
[ View ] |
"presumption of immunity" what a load
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
ΔĐΔΜATIK 🌍
@adamatic.bsky.social
[ View ] |
I am just some guy on the internet, a legal and political muggle, but I have a question: "I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States..." Does this ruling conflict with what is promised in the inauguration of POTUS? Is it just ceremony now?
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
N F
@natef.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Yeah, I read the main part of the decision before I looked at any commentary, and this was the part where I was like, this can’t mean what it says, right? But no, it does!
0 replies 1 reposts 5 likes
|
Tom Richardson Ph.D.
@cascadetommy.bsky.social
[ View ] |
“Telling an official to knowingly violate the constitution is related to official duties and therefore immune” is an bribed justice’s way of saying “we are a government of corrupt petulant men, not laws”
0 replies 2 reposts 10 likes
|
|
@saraesq715.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Isn’t the VP’s role in the certification process in the VP’s capacity as President of the Senate? So they were not really discussing an Executive Branch function under the purview of the President? It’s official action just because the President and VP are officially buddies? I’m confused.
0 replies 1 reposts 10 likes
|
Pat Sobkowski
@pjsobkowski.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Also, what?
6 replies 3 reposts 46 likes
|
Potomatic
@onbluskysku.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Talking about official duties is also official duties is a thing only this court could say
0 replies 0 reposts 4 likes
|
Mash
@fragment.city
[ View ] |
It's official conduct for Trump to threaten the VP not to carry out his official conduct properly?
2 replies 1 reposts 26 likes
|
Neil Stenhouse
@nstenhouse.bsky.social
[ View ] |
It seems like a hallucination as a serious argument, but maybe more understandable as a rationalization that just needs to look like a serious argument. A rationalization you can cite with all the correct notation
0 replies 1 reposts 9 likes
|
Bresnan - Remember Folks!: The Sun Sucks (and so do I)
@bresnanteddy.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Sounds like a thrilling game of legislative hot potato. Fairly sure Pence didn't discuss details of his attempted lynching with Trump though and his failure to act appropriately or pretty well at all to aid members of the house sure feels like a dereliction of duty still. I guess we'll see.
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
theTowa
@thetowa.bsky.social
[ View ] |
So trying to convince the VP to do something that's not an official duty (refusing to certify) is ok, according to the Robertspierre* court.
* - h/t himself.bsky.social
0 replies 1 reposts 2 likes
|
David S. Bernstein
@dbernstein.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Btw (he wrote, self-servingly) you can get Azari’s ridiculously smart analyses regularly at our newsletter:
goodpoliticsbadpolitics.substack.com
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
|
Ali Fleih
@alifleih.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This is like "prostitution is illegal unless there's a camera, then it's called porn and it's legal."
0 replies 0 reposts 2 likes
|
@pmanzo.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Judge Chutkan may schedule hearings ASAP on this rebuttable presumption, call Pence and others under oath. That's what should happen, and right now.
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
Nihl L'Amas
@nih-llamas.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Obstructing official conduct is part of my official conduct!
0 replies 0 reposts 3 likes
|
Frank Lynch
@fplynch.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Now let's apply that logic to January 6, 2025...
0 replies 0 reposts 4 likes
|
Eddie Dolan
@eddiedolan.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This seems to suggest that if we made it possible to prosecute the one President for pressuring the VP to renege on his constitutional duty to certify, we might infringe on all Presidents' willingness to talk about anything at all with their VP. And so he's immune, no matter what his intention?
0 replies 0 reposts 1 likes
|
ViperX83
@viperx83.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This scarcely matters, but doesn’t this definition of official conduct contradict how they defined it in McDonnell? There, they said McDonnell arranging phone calls and meetings with a cabinet official wasn’t an official act, but here, just talking about work is an official act?
0 replies 1 reposts 8 likes
|
A.
@buttmatt.bsky.social
[ View ] |
This logic is so strained it will need some ice, followed by heat, elevation and ibuprofen to recover
0 replies 1 reposts 3 likes
|
Dan Tags
@proftags.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Wouldn't this be official conduct for the VP, but not for the Pres? If I talk to you about your job, that's related to your job, not mine, right? I mean, I know it's all terrible and made up, but the logic doesn't even hold in this absolutely insane example
3 replies 2 reposts 39 likes
|
Jacob T. Levy
@jacobtlevy.bsky.social
[ View ] |
AYFSM
1 replies 1 reposts 23 likes
|
@marymacdougall.bsky.social
[ View ] |
Would Trump's attempt to extort Zelensky by threatening to withhold aid unless Zelensky came up with manufactured dirt on Biden now considered legal?!?
0 replies 1 reposts 3 likes